167 comments:

Bob Wright proposes nonsensical ideas on what should constitute how to subjugate the american gun owning public, in effect, his ideas would turn them into felons. We are already unconvicted felons in this country as it is, and Wright just wants to pile on.

The more I hear statists talk about limiting magazine size, the more I want to own a crew-served weapon and thousands of rounds of linked ammunition. By what masturbatory mental machination does limiting a gun magazine to ten rounds from thirteen make a difference? It certainly does not resurrect children in Connecticut dead at the hand of a madman.

it would be stopped cold.if that were the case, schools would be well guarded and patrolled. people with guns would prevent massacres. kids would stop going to gun free zone schools. teachers would pack heat. resources would be allocated.

Why six? Why not one? Do we, or do we not, have the right to defend our life and liberty with deadly force?

Also, what does he propose to do about criminal possession of firearms which do not meet his criteria?

What does he propose to do about over one million aliens illegally entering our nation every year?

What does he propose to do about our federal government which arms cartels and terrorists, and is seemingly unaccountable for their actions?

Why should an American citizen cede their rights to accommodate minority interests, including criminals and government? Both of which operate through marginal or comprehensive involuntary exploitation, and the latter which has demonstrated an obsession to commit progressive involuntary exploitation justified through democratic leverage or simple acts of executive decree.

His judgment is not conducive to proper risk management and his compromises are not justified by present circumstances or the available evidence.

I think that "militias" is probably the same concept of "yeoman archers."

Which means... it's not an army, it's not professionals, it's more like a demand that all citizens possess and practice with arms... the yeoman archers... who are required to spend a certain amount of time away from their fields and labor to practice with bows. It is arming the population, explicitly not a standing army. I believe that the founders didn't like the idea of a standing army at all, so not even with the word "militia" would they be talking about a professional army.

I could listen to Sullum all day, and Wright is like an icepick to the ears.

Here's what my body did when it automatically started imitating him. It squeezed the words flat and stretched them out sideways so that they actually whinge, and take on a 'I'm thinking about this for the first time, help me out here while I kick all the way resist all your premises and reject your conclusions' It hurt my face so I forced myself to stop and the only way to stop that is totally STOP

Synova, no less than a FAR, FAR left jurist like Larry Tribe has gone on record as saying the 2nd amend indeed supports the "yeoman" concept you speak of "because if you don't have the individual farmer with the rifle over the fireplace you don't get Lexington and Concord."

People who do not envy the success of their fellow citizens have no desire or will for redistributive change (i.e. involuntary exploitation).

I see a pattern emerging in their words and actions. I judge the content of their character to be selfish and shallow.

On this, and so many other topics, they are making the wrong requests. This only confirms that the Second Amendment is both proper and necessary.

So, who will rule, a majority or minority interest, or will we step back and respect our fellow citizens? The electoral college firewall can only protect us so much from the consequences of democratic leverage and fraud.

Let's go fishing with Robert Wright. We'll spend all day getting Robert out of the weeds. His accordion and washboard band, bamboo poles, stilts, and orator's platform all tangled up. What fun we'll have all day, but don't think about catching any fish.

I'm listening and Wright is currently claiming that the "militias" were state armies... the National Guard, or whatever.

I always believed that the states did not have professional armies and certainly the federal government did not have professional armies... though there was a Navy rather early on, and Marines early on, for the same reason that we have permanent standing armies now... you can't put a *ship* in your closet or hang it over your front door.

I don't think Bob Wright won the argument but, as lefties go, he has a decent sense of humor and doesn't present his arguments in a hectoring or condescending way. He doesn't seem like a bad guy.....I don't care what the rate of fire is for legitimate gun owners. I do worry about maniacs who have guns capable of pulling of thirty rounds a minute on defenceless children. Can anyone make a practical suggestion in this area? I'd have no problem if extended magazines were grandfathered out. Don't make the old magazines illegal. Just stop making them. Crooks and madmen are notoriously lazy and impulsive. Maybe they wouldn't have the know how or ambition to make an extended magazine....I just think it's self evident that a slower rate of fire would give more people a chance to run away and that the more often you change magazines in a stressful situation, the greater the chances are that you will jam the machine.

How would armed Principles and Assistant Principles effect the targeting of schools by emotionally unstable people or terrorists?

I guess it depends on what you value. Leftists have no issue with armed guards at banks who are only protecting traceable cash, but hey won't allow the young and vulnerable at schools the same consideration. (Not even talking about abortion here.)

Again, why is HLS offering such a course on a president still in power by one of his friends, and a friend linked with radical anti-American causes?

So Wright's big idea that "would actually work" is forcing the entire world to guns and rifles that can only hold six bullets and banning detachable magazines and speedloaders. That would have stopped Adam Lanza.

Nonsense. Even assuming you can get the world onboard and force current gun owners to give up their now-illegal guns, Adam Lanza would just bring four or five guns.

Also, never mind the brave new world of 3D printing of guns that is coming.

But the Robert Wrights will just recommend more laws and surveillance.

William, how much of a difference would it make, really? 30 rounds in a minute is one trigger pull every 2 seconds. How about those 30 rounds take twice as long, or four times as long... 4 minutes? And then what if you're using the weapon for home defense or self defense or you're a cop or something and suddenly your trigger has a timer on it and won't let you shoot a second time for 5 seconds if you miss the first?

(There would probably be less damage on full automatic, pull the trigger, the muzzle heads for the ceiling, and all of a sudden your ammo is completely gone. As I understand military tactics, this is good for keeping the enemy's head down, even set on three shots per trigger pull, not for killing anyone, while a couple of designated guys with rifles set on semi-automatic take time to actually aim.)

Watch this video of Soledad O'Brien and her disregard for facts about gun control.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C6Wkkabcbs&feature=player_embedded

12/19/12 6:05 PM

"And if you have a man who seems to be troubled and he is armed with a semi-automatic weapon, a rifle, then there is a high likelihood that he is going to massacre a lot of people in one location, sir, in a very small amount of time." I think she underestimates the number of "troubled" people who own weapons. Is she just anti-gun or does she also think that all mental illness causes people to act out violently?

I was really struck by Wright's "thought experiment" asking Sullum how many mass murders at schools it would take before Sullum would change his mind about what the 2d Amendment means. In other words, at what point would Sullum be willing to pretend that the amendment means something other that what Sullum really thinks it means in order to allow for what Wright would call "effective" gun control.

This is awful in two ways. First, we've apparently reached a point at which supposedly intelligent people don't even hide the fact that their reasoning is determined by the outcome they desire. Wright will adopt any reading of the Constitution that lets the government regulate what he wants to regulate but not touch what he doesn't want touched. This is shameless.

Second, the idea that people who disagree with what the Constitution says should try to change the Constitution (rather than try to pretend that it says something else) is not even worth discussiong.

As the gun lobby gears up to battle proposals such as this one, you'll hear a lot about the fact that mass killings are actually a drop in the bucket of total homicides. True. But mass killings take a disproportionate toll on the nation psychologically and spiritually.

[Excuse the top paragraph in my previous comment.]

So Wright's proposal is really not about saving lives but avoding a disproportionate psychological and spiritual toll on the nation. Sheesh.

If that's the issue, then I say go with a news blackout, pundit blackout and politician blackout on these events.

His big contention, "Imagine the following world, which it's within our power to create: It's illegal to sell or possess a firearm--rifle or pistol--that can hold more than six bullets. And it's illegal to sell or possess a firearm with a detachable magazine. In other words, once a shooter exhausted the six rounds, he couldn't just snap in another six-round magazine; he'd have to put six more bullets in the gun one by one.", is contingent on the fact he never saw a six-shooter made without a solid frame.

One can replace the cylinder as easily as an automatic can replace a clip, in fact, that was how people traveled through dangerous country - not several revolvers, but one revolver and several cylinders, all loaded and ready to go.

I don't think my suggestion was in any way a solution to the problem. In this, I join an already long list of commenters on both sides of the issue. I do note that there have been several incidents where the carnage was limited by the jamming of the shooter's weapon.

When are we going to talk about how the media sensationalism actually encourages these nuts to commit mass murder? It seems the first amendment is more a root cause than the second amendment. I wonder what Wright would say about that? Would we have to rewrite the first amendment like the populace are 6-year olds?

The militias were composed of citizen soldiers. These were ordinary citizens who came together when there was cause.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

The premise of the Second Amendment is that citizens will arrive armed and prepared to join a militia.

being necessary to the security of a free State

The Second Amendment is recorded in two parts. First, it is an explicit recognition of the States separate from the United States (or federal government). Second, it is an explicit recognition of each State having an interest that its citizens have the right to "keep and bear Arms" to ensure its security and freedom.

The Second Amendment is about State rights, and incidentally about citizen rights. The Second Amendment explicitly constrains the authority of the federal government, and implicitly subordinates the rights of the States to its citizens. The citizens lose their right to "keep and bear Arms" when the security of a free State is no longer necessary.

David writes: First, we've apparently reached a point at which supposedly intelligent people don't even hide the fact that their reasoning is determined by the outcome they desire. Wright will adopt any reading of the Constitution that lets the government regulate what he wants to regulate but not touch what he doesn't want touched. This is shameless.

Agree! OT, but this exactly like the lefty reasoning on AGW: "How much sea level rise will it take? How many Hurricane Sandy's will it take before you accept a need for punitive carbon taxes?"

One can replace the cylinder as easily as an automatic can replace a clip, in fact, that was how people traveled through dangerous country - not several revolvers, but one revolver and several cylinders, all loaded and ready to go.

edutcher: In the update to his article Wright says anything like detachable cylinders or speedloaders for revolvers would banned too.

See? It's easy!

I doubt that Wright's plan is all that practical. People are resourceful and find ways around schemes such as his, and if all else fails, just bring more guns.

Synova noted... Interesting argument Wright makes at the end... that there is "no difference" between a gun with a limit of 6 cartridges and one with lots more... if there is no difference then nothing is gained.

Wright doesn't care about effective action--it's more about punishing ordinary people who disagree with his view. He's vindictive--just like Obama on taxes.

This bloggingheads was not a success. We dwelt too long in Robert Wright's fantasy world of counter-factuals. Let's focus on the real world--the world in which mass shootings are extremely rare anomalies, not the world in which ten schoolchildren are gunned down each hour. Let's anchor our minds here, where 300 million guns actually exist, and not there, where the government can replace those 300 million guns with new, magazine-less versions that fire only six rounds.

Let's ponder solutions to the world's real problems, like the black homicide rate being 8 times higher than the white rate. Let's not ponder solutions to the problems of Wright's fantasyland, where people have RPGs and regularly shoot down helicopters.

What is it about the real world that makes progressives so reticent? Why do they stomp their feet over 26 deaths, as though this is anything other than a freak occurrence, when Chicago sees hundreds each year, every year--hundreds, by the way, that would not be prevented if guns were limited to six-round magazines--and they stand around, puzzled and mute.

3D printing of 30-round magazines would be much easier and is perfectly possible right now. Lots of them are already plastic. Just add a spring. There will be popular online suppliers of magazine springs er, springing up. And injection molding machines are not difficult to obtain and not that expensive. Margins for Mexican smugglers will be better than for pot.

One can replace the cylinder as easily as an automatic can replace a clip, in fact, that was how people traveled through dangerous country - not several revolvers, but one revolver and several cylinders, all loaded and ready to go.

edutcher: In the update to his article Wright says anything like detachable cylinders or speedloaders for revolvers would banned too.

One can replace the cylinder as easily as an automatic can replace a clip, in fact, that was how people traveled through dangerous country - not several revolvers, but one revolver and several cylinders, all loaded and ready to go.

edutcher: In the update to his article Wright says anything like detachable cylinders or speedloaders for revolvers would banned too.

Says something even more shocking about Bob Wright. Wow. Let's make public policy based the irrational feelings and thoughts of 6 year olds. He's supposed to be intelligent? Unless the 18 seconds are completely out of context, he may know much information but understands nothing.

I'm also unnerved by Wright's casual attitude toward something as ridiculous as confiscating every gun in America and having the government pay for replacements featuring a smaller and fixed number of rounds. That's 300,000,000 guns. Conservatively, without even counting the cost of organizing such an initiative and destroying the confiscated weapons, we'll say each new weapon would cost $500. Not unreasonable. Maybe unreasonable in that it aims too low. But anyway, that's $150 billion.

$150 billion. To prevent mass shootings that claimed less than 50 lives this year. With no evidence that this would actually prevent mass shootings or limit the number of casualties since shooters could just carry multiple weapons.

But Wright's a liberal and believes everything the government does is free. Free money. To satiate Wright's desire for gun control. And his desire to have the government spend more money regardless of what it's spent on. There may even be a multiplier effect, which is good for the economy. Think how many jobs it would create destroying everyone's guns and giving them brand new ones.

Wait. This is just Cash for Clunkers, but for guns! What the hell? I thought Democrats were the party of Fresh, New Ideas! Actually, I didn't think that. When the left collectively started arguing for limits on magazine capacity--which is the same stupid idea they've had for decades--I knew we were in for a treat. A stale, old, uninspired, unsurprising treat.

It seems Sandy Brook is this year's Occupy Wall Street. That is, a pretense for progressives to talk about something they've wanted to talk about for decades but nobody was listening. Occupy Wall Street, according to the media, proved the country was ready for a 'serious conversation' on income inequality. Then the NYTs and MSNBC and CNN started running dozens of stories and segments on income inequality. But nobody was listening, and the whole thing kind of fizzled out without anyone really realizing. Which is why philosophers in the NYTs still talk about OWS in the present tense. They don't realize it's dead. Who has the gumption to tell them? Be gentle when you break the news, okay?

They thought they had a winner with the theater shooting, but people moved on. Batman was too violent and didn't contrast well with more violence. But an elementary school? High five! We struck gold! Dust off those articles on guns and gun control and crime statistics--wait, no, not crime statistics. Other countries' crime statistics. That's a perennial favorite of editorial boards across the globe.

Now we're having a "meaningful conversation" about guns, and we'll still be chatting when we go off the fiscal cliff. This is a nice distraction.

Listened to about 5 minutes of the middle of it over at bloggingheads. Everything Wright says is "suppose this", "let's imagine", "what if", etc. He never addresses reality. You come to any conclusion you want when you reject reality and substitute it with your own imaginary reality.

Keep in mind poor Bob is emotionally and commercially invested in a lot of progressivism, so he's probably sitting atop a pot of howling progressives, few of whom are making rational arguments at the moment.

He's more reasonable and brighter than most, but I believe hopelessly naive about a lot of human affairs, including political organization. Evolutionary psychology, behavioral economics, and "Reason" only go so far.

Good enough for a Pulitzer and for Princeton these days though. His journalism is well-researched.

Wait, wait! Let me get this straight.A new gun control law is only going to be complied-to by law abiding citizens? So, you mean the criminals will still have, or make, their own huge-ass magazine clips?

Well, crap.

You know, a nut case with a bottle full of gasoline and a bic lighter can kill just as many people just as fast, and for a lot less money, and without ever having a background check or a psychological evaluation.

Choose either reality or Wright's silly hypothetical ones, but the only rational response in either case is the same, shoot the gunmen, or let them know you will if they show up. Nothing else will work, so all this talk or any policy trying to avoid that will produce no enhanced protection or safety than we have now - none.

"Wait, wait! Let me get this straight.A new gun control law is only going to be complied-to by law abiding citizens? So, you mean the criminals will still have, or make, their own huge-ass magazine clips?

I've never seen such unhinged and OPEN support for doing away with the 2nd amendment as is happening right now. The scariest part is President Obama has no words of defense for it.

Rights mean nothing to the left. Not just the 2nd amendment. There's still a guy in prison for putting a silly, anti-Muslim video on youtube. Freedom of religion must be sacrificed at the altar of Obamacare. The 19th amendment's essentially toast already. Obama's happily continued infringements on search and seizure. The rest will be falling soon.

Remember "The Government Is The Only Thing We All Belong To" and it will do with us as it wishes.

"Wright is a smart guy and has a good temperament for a college professor."

I only know him from these video blogs, but I've seen him quite a bit, and I just don't see that at all. It appears just the opposite to me. I've never seen him in one where he seem to be the smart, reasonable side of the screen - never once.

They may be motivated by vindictiveness, but the practical outcome is to marginalize or eviscerate their competing interests. It's either a convenient coincidence or they are truly ignorant and incompetent.

In NY there was such a lunatic as Astro describes. He killed, as I remember, over eighty people at a dance club by such an expedient....Prior to 9/11, I had never thought of anyone deliberately crashing a plane into a skyscraper. After 9/11 I would look up and wonder what size plane it would take to bring down the diferent skyscrapers. Prior to this I had never contemplated first graders being on anyone's hit list. Now I see kids at a street crossing and wonder if some madman will run them all over. Evil and irrationality are very easy to introduce into someone's consciousness....This crime has generated a lot of rage and raw sorrow. The perp was a wispy young man, and his mother was a fatuous woman. They deserve but are not fit receptacles for the anger they inspire. And so we demonize and bladder slap each other. We're all pretty impotent in the face of the senseless, shapeless, shifting forms of evil that quicken and fade before us. The very vagueness of the dread makes it more malignant.....I think the 2nd amendment fosters a more self reliant yeomanry. I think the banning of the NRA will foster higher self esteem among liberals.

I hadn't heard the explanation before that Sullum gives, which really clarifies why the amendment references the militia -- that the weapons that the people have a right to own are the weapons that a militiaman would have. That actually makes sense.

We protect our mayors with men with guns; we protect our governors with men with guns; we protect the House and the Senate and the President, with men with guns; we protect our courts, our banks, our jewelry stores, our sports arenas, and our pawn shops, all with men with guns.

However, our most precious possessions, our children, we protect with a piece of paper and a sign (the Gun Free Zone law).

Now, in response to the slaughter of 20 innocents, we propose to punish those (gun owners) who are innocent, and protect our most cherished possession, our children, with a another piece of paper (a new gun law).

BOB The psychology of a 6 year old is especially resistant to, you know, calm rational explanation, so I think when you are talking about the welfare of the nation, you got to accept a certain amount of irrationality.

JACOB Yea, but it doesn’t mean that you got to make national policy on that basis.

BOB Oh, I think it does.

Ok... Bob is talking about the 'Trust us, changes are coming' clause in the Constitution...These spanking new laws will be grounded on the values that have made this priviledged country the envy of the world... and will, dare I say, pass constitutional Jelly with flying colors.

In the post 9/11 days, liberal friends of mine were doing the math on the percent of Americans killed in the Pentagon and twin towers. They argued that statistically, the odds of getting killed in a terrorist attack were vanishingly small. On a purely rational basis the proper response was to pursue the perpetrators and nothing else. To spend resources on anti-terrorism, the Patriot Act, wars of regime change, etc., they argued, would be an emotional overreaction to the actual rationally understood, statistical threat.

I didn't and don't buy that line of argumentation for many reasons, but some of those reasons run to the emotional. Americans were unwilling to accept the emotional state that a surrender to or acceptance of a constant terrorist threat implies. The cost of achieving our current state of relative security was dear, and it could be argued, irrational.

I agreed with essentially nothing Bob said, but I don't think the basic point he was making - that sometimes a collective sense of security politically overrides more rational considerations - was as absurd or outrageous as commenters here suggest.

“I guarantee you Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns, so don’t buy that malarkey,” Biden said to voters during a campaign stop in Castlewood, Virginia on September 20. “Don’t buy that malarkey. They’re going to start peddling that to you.”

There's that word Malarkey again. It seems like Biden is being ironic in its usage since every time he brings it up he essentially uses it the opposite of its intended purpose.I'm not a gun expert, but doesn't the baretta fire a burst?

Regarding the last clip: My kids have been utterly unphased by the Sandy Hook news. My wife and I talked to them about it in very general terms and they asked a few questions. At their elementary school the massacre was discussed -- again in fairly general terms (the school has been really great in the way they've handled this). I've asked them all if they've heard stories from other kids, just in case they've heard anything disturbing they want to discuss.

They shrug.

Perhaps the fact that we don't own a television has something to do with their resilience. Perhaps they take their cue from their parents. Between ourselves my wife and I have discussed our horror and outrage, but we don't go around broadcasting horror and outrage to our kids.

Or perhaps Robert Wright is utterly, completely wrong. It's not the six-year-olds that are irrational. It's the grownups.

Americans were unwilling to accept the emotional state that a surrender to or acceptance of a constant terrorist threat implies. The cost of achieving our current state of relative security was dear, and it could be argued, irrational.

With the growing talk of repealing the Second Amendment, I got to wondering, since it has been our premise that our rights source from Nature's God and that the Constitution merely guarantees them, would a repeal of the Second (or any other of the Bill of Rights) actually make the right go away? ... or would the right just fall among the unenumerated rights?

Ok, so then for libs who now are all up in arms about taking away all guns, what was the problem again with having body scanners? What about the whole, sacrifice a bit of liberty for security and you get neither argument?(Tis by the way isn't addressed to libertarians, they atleast are consistent about this).

A pat down goes too far. But depriving them of fundamental rights and depriving them of their literal freedom because of an isolated incident that they have nothing to do with doesn't go far enough.

I'm so sick of arguing with libs our of both sides of their mouths I feel like going on a shooting spree.

William wrote: Can anyone make a practical suggestion in this area? I'd have no problem if extended magazines were grandfathered out. Don't make the old magazines illegal. Just stop making them. Crooks and madmen are notoriously lazy and impulsive. Maybe they wouldn't have the know how or ambition to make an extended magazine....I just think it's self evident that a slower rate of fire would give more people a chance to run away and that the more often you change magazines in a stressful situation, the greater the chances are that you will jam the machine.

how about someone on the scene able to shoot the shooter in the face before be kills more kids?

jr565 says: Ok, so then for libs who now are all up in arms about taking away all guns, what was the problem again with having body scanners?

Very few liberals are talking about taking away all guns, and none of the political items on the agenda regarding gun control suggest call for that. Maybe someone like you, who knows even less than Robert Wright on this topic (never heard of Beretta shotguns?) should STFU and let the grownups discuss the topic.

"William wrote:Can anyone make a practical suggestion in this area? I'd have no problem if extended magazines were grandfathered out. Don't make the old magazines illegal. Just stop making them."

Simply allowing for concealed carry by faculaty and staff will create sufficient uncertainty that most celebrity wanna-be's will be deterred. That's why in gun happy America so few of the burglaries are when the owners are present but the rate of "hot" burglaries in Britain where guns are outlawed is much much higher, something above 40%. In America, the people who do not own guns are free riders onthe uncertainty created by those that do.

"Simply allowing for concealed carry by faculaty and staff will create sufficient uncertainty that most celebrity wanna-be's will be deterred."

Some people argue that armed guards in schools make them even more like prisons. But I think that simply allowing concealed carry for those people who obtain concealed carry permits (which involve quite a bit of training and what-not) wouldn't make a school seem prison-like.

Have a rule that the concealed weapon has to be under positive control at all times... no purse holsters or desk drawers. (There, see, I just advocated a gun regulation.)

And even if it doesn't deter anyone much, and even if something really bad happens and the person who is armed is not in a place to do any good... it doesn't hurt anything either. At worst it's neutral.

Query if it law on 9/11 provided that anyone with a CCW permit could carry on a flight. Would Mohammed Atta and crew have even attempted the highjackings? -- they with their homemade plexiglass knives and box cutters vs the risk that a Tex of Bubba might be carrying. Instead as we know, the united States Government provided the 9/11 highjackers with a monopoly on deadly weapons that day. 30,000 feet on a commercial airliner -- the ultimate gun free zone and a Hobbesian state of nature.

Beach, I think that the biggest contributer to the success of the terrorists plan on 9/11 was that we *knew* how hijackers behaved... they'd take control of a plane and fly it somewhere and eventually everyone would be released, less one or two unfortunates. So if people had been armed on the planes on 9/11 they might not have understood what was going on or done anything to prevent it. On the last plane the passengers had news reports, knew what was going on, and did overpower and crash the plane before it could reach it's target. Since 9/11 there are air marshals on flights and cockpit doors are locked.

Should law enforcement *and* people with legitimate carry permits be allowed to carry on airplanes? I don't know why not.

DADvocate said...Rights mean nothing to the left. Not just the 2nd amendment. There's still a guy in prison for putting a silly, anti-Muslim video on youtube================Bad choice for a right-wing martyr. He is in jail because he was a scumbag convict on probation from bank fraud and internet ID theft that also had a meth lab conviction. He publically violated his probation against Internet use, use of false ID (caught with 6 forged passparts), and conning investors.He announced himself nationally using a forged ID and saying that he had 100 wealthy Jews backing him, and he hoped Americans would be killed or injured due to his video. (and it did put thousands of Americans in jeopardy by triggering 11 other attacks).

Same shit would have happened if a convicted hardcore Democrat sex offender banned as terms of probation from Internet chatrooms. If he used his usual modus operandi to set up a "teen encounter love interest site with like-minded Obama supporters of the opposite sex. And got caught when he bragged on TV he was bringing Obama supporters together only...

Pick another right wing martyr - the scumbag will be in jail for serving the rest of his criminal sentence for past crimes - at least a year.

Also, states have their own concealed carry laws and last I heard there was no federal demand that states respect other states permits so when you take off from one place obeying the law, you may land in another state as a felon.

Synova -- I agree we had a lot of history for the pattern. No one wants to be quick on the trigger (literally or metaphorically). We always consider the possibilities and hope for the best. But as cowardly as I am by nature -- if I was on one of those flights and carrying, I think I would have acted when they slit the flight attendants throat. At least I hope I would have.

Yeah, that's the bad thing about martyrs. They're like relatives. You don't get to pick 'em.

So here we are, defending a scumbag who is in jail, not because he's a scumbag, but because our government needed a scapegoat. We don't change our values on the basis of how deserving a person is, and so I, at least, don't have a choice.

Re 11:47 -- my hypo was premised on a federal law preempting state law. Of course several of the flights depart Boston Logan -- so getting the gun tothe airport would have been a problem. Even so -- the query is sound for showing that an effective, total, ban on firearms made 9/11 possible.

Beach, back when I was looking for work I went to a job fair and talked to the air marshal representative. I think that a middle aged lady (or man) would be a perfect air marshal because kids are grown so you can travel more and it's easier to sit and do nothing and stay alert at the same time. But the rep said "here's the info check it out" and she was *looking at me* you know? And so I went online and looked... it's the same requirements age-wise and physically as the military. Surprise! (not)

There was a certain amount of training for working in tight spaces, but I still think they're missing an opportunity for effective and *completely invisible* undercover (as all air marshals are) security on planes.

The monster always find a way out of the box. Many years ago there was a case in the Bronx where a guy got pissed off about something. He poured gasoline over the entrance to a dance club. The club was on the second floor, and there was only one exit. Over eighty people died. If Lanza's mother didn't have the guns, what would have kept this sick fuck from using the car to run over kids at a school crossing....This crime more than any in recent memory is upsetting. I've tried to stay away from the news. You just have to see a picture of one of those kids and it puts you in a blue funk for the rest of the day....I think the whole gun debate is self indulgent. None of these kids are coming back. Even by the standards of the sick fucks, this was a particularly sick fuck. Maybe the next few atrocities will not be aimed at first graders, but these sick fucks always try to up the evil.

Yeah, that's the bad thing about martyrs. They're like relatives. You don't get to pick 'em.

So here we are, defending a scumbag who is in jail, not because he's a scumbag, but because our government needed a scapegoat. We don't change our values on the basis of how deserving a person is, and so I, at least, don't have a choice.===============No, not really....You confuse normal people's rights with the rights of someone on probation.You have a convicted armed robber on parole that shows up at a 2nd Amendment rally and waves a 9mm around saying it is a God-given or Sacred Parchement right and is interviewed so everyone knows hes waving his God-given gun in political protest of his "Sacred Rights"....Guess what. He isn't granted protected political speech with use of an unloaded prop....he violated his probation, plus most state laws saying violent convicts lose the right to weapons. Doesn't matter that he wasn't using the gun for killing or robbing - just agitating..Just like his scumbag flim flam colleague Nakoula was stripped of his usual tools to do bank fraud and ID theft fraud over the internet. .

One bullet is too many for a madman to have and there is no limit to the number of bullets those who defend against a madman should have. This doesn't advance the debate, but then, neither do any of Mr Wrights. points.

William,You could stop making 30-rd magazines today and it would take a hundred years for them to become even remotely rare. There are tens, if not hundreds, of millions of them in the U.S. In 1999, five years after the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban went into effect, you could still legally and readily buy 30-rd AK mags for around $10 in just about any gun store. Mass production is just what it says. That horse is out of the barn and no amount of wishful thinking will put it back in.

Wright's problem is that he's not nearly as bright as he thinks he is, and knows a lot less than he thinks he does.

For example, you don't have to load cartridges one by one into a revolver. There are these things called speed loaders that hold the cartridges in the same pattern as the cylinder. You can see them in action here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgvCGcD-FAg

Back when the popo carried revolvers instead of Glocks they were used for decades. This isn't exactly obscure knowledge. But Wright, how doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground on guns, still presumes to lecture us on the subject.

Aside from that, his premises are false. Yes, you do need high cap magazines for self defense. That's why the police have them. I may be facing the same criminals as the police, so I need the same weapons as the police carry.

I think Wright is very intelligent. But also arrogant beyond belief. Some of his use of rhetorical device is dastardly. For instance, he has a very annoying way of dismissing very clear arguments when he knows he is in a corner, to not have to admit he is incorrect. It goes something like this: yes, that's a good argument, but here is why I'm right, but it's not worth continuing this discussion, so let's move on to another topic.

It puts the other debater into the position of having to violate social protocol.

But it's pretty amazing how quickly he picks up and twists around arguments in his mind, at least from my point of view.

Another argument Wright made that seemed so clever, was let's take this to the some abstract conclusions. Sullum was so clever in showing how that argument didn't make sense, in this case if many attacks with guns occurred frequently. The whole world would be a different world, and none of the constitution would make much sense.

The next time Biden or Obama, or for that matter Michelle and the kids decide to go somewhere, like maybe Chicago, instead of traveling with armed guards, they need to just put up a sign that says "GUN FREE ZONE."

"You confuse normal people's rights with the rights of someone on probation."

No. I don't.

You confuse the "fortunate" legalistic elements, that probation was violated, with the desire by our government to make this fellow an example. If a notorious gangster is arrested for tax evasion, no one is confused that the FBI was actually after him for taxes instead of everything else.

Whats-his-face may be in prison for parole violations, but only a fool thinks he's not a political prisoner as well as a message to the world that we can, if we *choose*, arrest those who insult the prophet.

Some feller wrote:Very few liberals are talking about taking away all guns, and none of the political items on the agenda regarding gun control suggest call for that. Maybe someone like you, who knows even less than Robert Wright on this topic (never heard of Beretta shotguns?) should STFU and let the grownups discuss the topic.

I'm not a gun expert, so I don't know the individual gun manufacturers and what they do. I don't own a gun. That doesn't mean that I don't agree with the principle that people have a right to bear arms, and that gun free zones are stupid and lead to more people being defenseless when people actually start shooting in one of them.Also, I know the people making the claim that they are going to try to implement gun control. And we're having a discussion while people in the media are smearing the NRA and all gun owners for being culpable.and people like Bob who want to pretty much ban all guns. Just because someone says they are for reasonable "gun control" you have to look at where they're coming from and whether those controls are reasonable. Like for example the reasonable proposals to deal with climate change. So, shove it up up your ass you tw*t.

Two proposals that might help that don't involve going on a gun control pogrom (though I'd certainly accept some controls - but lets deate them on the merits). Schools should not be gun free zones any more. It doesn't mean arm the students, but security or teachers? absolutely.Second, the media should stop putting out the names of those committing these crimes. We have rules for not revealing the names of rape victims, we dont read the terrorist demands on air, etc. stop feeding into their egos and giving them their publicity. Report on the incident, but keep the killers anonymous.Half of the reason that some of these kids go on these sprees is because of the notoriety they oknow they'll receive. So don't give them the credit. Sme nameless kid shot up his school and killed some kids before killing himself. And now he's gone, unrecognized as if he never existed.

"...you have to look at where they're coming from and whether those controls are reasonable."

Wright is all about... "But if we did follow my recommendation you have to admit it would help, right?" Well, sure, if we could magically change everyone's guns to a gun that had to be loaded one cartridge at a time and no more than six at once... sure, that would do what he thinks it would do. But it's a FANTASY. And the other guy tries to point that out, that the fast loaders and large magazines (and even guns themselves) can be easily manufactured and Wright's answer is that bad guys are lazy?

Saying "but this doesn't work at all, it can't, it won't, and you have no explanation of how this would actually work" is responded to with... "but it makes me feel good."

(That and "you're evil and want children to die" though, to be fair, not from Wright as far as I've seen.)

AllenS said... The next time Biden or Obama, or for that matter Michelle and the kids decide to go somewhere, like maybe Chicago, instead of traveling with armed guards, they need to just put up a sign that says "GUN FREE ZONE."

I wonder what Bob Wright would think about that.

12/20/12 7:14 AM AllenS said... Why the double standard?

Some animals are more equal than others. It's always Animal Farm. The best book ever written.

Here's a comment at Lucianne:

Reply 1—Posted by: Shadow722, 12/18/2012 11:51:54 PM We protect our mayors with men with guns; we protect our governors with men with guns; we protect the House and the Senate and the President, with men with guns; we protect our courts, our banks, our jewelry stores, our sports arenas, and our pawn shops, all with men with guns.

However, our most precious possessions, our children, we protect with a piece of paper and a sign (the Gun Free Zone law).

Now, in response to the slaughter of 20 innocents, we propose to punish those (gun owners) who are innocent, and protect our most cherished possession, our children, with a another piece of paper (a new gun law).

Half of the reason that some of these kids go on these sprees is because of the notoriety they oknow they'll receive. So don't give them the credit. Sme nameless kid shot up his school and killed some kids before killing himself. And now he's gone, unrecognized as if he never existed.

Why don't gun rights supporters go on air and demand a "discussion" of First Amendment controls?

You can't really argue that the media's coverage doesn't exacerbate the problem.

@jr565, I compete in shooting events and I think the Beretta shotgun is pretty nice but I don't actually own one myself.

@somefeller, regarding your 10:56 comment, while "very few" liberals are calling for all guns to be relinquished, there is absolutely no one, as in not a single person, who does not believe that the vast majority of liberals want to confiscate all guns not held by inner city gangs. They hold their tongues for tactical reasons, not because they accept our unalienable right to defend ourselves from four-legged and two-legged predators.

I have no idea what liberals can do to regain the trust they've lost, nor do I think you or any other left-of-center person much cares whether we trust you or not.

ok everyone has some context to outlaw or restrict guns, but suppose you live near the Mexican border Texas or Arizona, the administration of course has already given mexican Drug lords untraceable weapons as it is, not that they needed any more. Do you really want to be armed with a gun that can only shoot 6 bullets? When Panoho Villa and his drug smuggling friends roll up on me a lot of good that will do. Not to mention when a wild pig or mountain lion decide to charge me I hope I am calm enough to put 1 of the 6 bullets I have in my target.

As but one example some feller of the rhetoric the anti gun zealots are using to milk this controversy (never let a crisis go to waste as they say) here's what a dem i(Himes)is saying about Rick Perry:So the notion that more Americans quote unquote in the words of Governor Perry, ‘packing heat’ will make us safer is not founded in reality, in facts or in history,” Himes said bitterly during a press conference. “It is founded in the fantasy of testosterone laden individuals who have blood on their hands for articulating that idea.”

is that distinguishing between machine guns or semi autos or is it making a blanket statement on guns in general. That's the real discussion the left is trying to have.You saying, no one is saying we should ban all guns and are just offering sensible proposals for gun control, isn't being borne out by those who are anti gun in the media right now. So, your whole assertion, some feller, is a load of crap.

Maybe you are more nuanced in your position and just want to ban guns Only under very limited circumstances, but that's not really where the left is coming from in general or in specific.

Rick perry wasn't saying packing heat meant all people should be buying assault rifles. Yet, to Himes any gun leaves blood on the NRA's hands. The idea of "packing heat" means you have blood on your hands.

I think one of the by products of the sexual liberation movement was single motherhood. I think it's worthwhile to teach abstinence in schools not because it will totally eliminate high school sex but because it will teach young people that there are other choices that are perhaps better at that age. They won't learn those choices going to the movies and listening to the music that is directed at them. If as a byproduct of that education there are a few less rudderless young men in the next generation so much the better......Ditto with extended magazines. I'm sure that there will continue to be shooters with sufficient ingenuity to fashion or obtain such things, but if a few end up with slower loading weapons I see that as a plus and not as a step towards a totalitarian state.....I was once in a bar where gunfire broke out. The bar was in lower Manhattan and was frequented by off duty court officers, correction officers and night shift drudges from Wall St. who were more attracted to the steam table than the ambience. The shooter was an off duty correction officer. He had been slapped around by some bully earlier. He went out to his car and came back with a gun and started shooting. I guess he wasn't completely irresponsible. The only person he shot was his assailant. I was sitting in the back and only heard the shots. I didn't learn the story til later. There was a back exit. I went out it in big hurry and never, ever went back to that bar.... In the real world I'm not famous for my courage, but I wasn't the first person through that door. The most visceral response to gunfire is to panic and run away. I presume some of the people through the exit ahead of me were peace officers trained in the use of firearms....I know that there are some people who have acted bravely in the presence of these shooters, but don't bet the farm on Dirty Harry stepping up to the plate. There have been occasions where the carnage has stopped because the shooter's gun jammed. Something to think about.

William... You can teach abstinence and I think you ought to, but it doesn't involve making sex illegal for those students who have sex anyway. Also, getting out the back door is the smartest thing to do. No one should say you shouldn't get out or that you've got an obligation to stay.

However...

My karate teacher made this distinction... Run away. Always run away. Unless you're a little female who has children. Then you go for the closest to a kill strike as you can possibly manage. Because you're not going to get a second blow in, and you *can't* run away.

The teachers at this school did not head for the door. This was not a case of *choosing* to stay and confront the shooter.

If you can run away, that's what you do. The decision tree isn't that complicated.

Synova wrote:he teachers at this school did not head for the door. This was not a case of *choosing* to stay and confront the shooter.

If you can run away, that's what you do. The decision tree isn't that complicated.

exactly. Hiding kids in a classroom cowering in a corner isn't exactly a safeguard against someone getting shot IF the shooter decides to go into that classroom. its' rather like shooting fish in a barrel. Those students who werent killed are lucky as hell that the shooter ended his life before going into additional classrooms. But cowering is not a defense against bullets.If you're going to hide in a room you might as well make it your last stand. And as such, you should have something to defend yourself and your students with.

It's just a different point of view and I think it might not be so obvious if you're not a mother or a small woman or whatever. (And saying so is something that Crack would get on my case for saying.)

I think that the picture people get in their heads when other people talk about being armed for self-defense and the defense of others is one where everyone is expected to become a combatant, and it's very true that people, real people, don't behave that way. It's not realistic.

And I think that taking the example of my karate teacher might help. If learning karate is equated to carrying a weapon... the purpose is not to engage in battles. And with martial arts people are accustomed to that concept. You're learning to avoid confrontations and avoid fights and it seems very natural and coherent to learn to crush a throat while learning *not* to fight at all.

And a good teacher will be on you from the start that you run away. If you have to hit someone it's so that you can run away. (The *first* element of effective self-defense is shoes you can RUN in.) It's never about standing toe to toe and having it out.

And then my teacher would look at those of us he knew had small children and he'd explain... it's different for you. You've got no choice. If your kids are with you your objective is no longer your own survival.

But normally that's not the issue and it's not what karate is about and it's not what carrying a gun for protection is about. The RIGHT answer is still avoiding conflict, and if that's not possible, it's about getting away.

UNLESS you have to protect someone else, if there are children, or if you're trapped.

But cowering the children and hoping he doesn't shoot you is no plan. At least throw chalk filled erasers at his face. It a natural reacton, hard to consciously overcome, to let a projectile of any sort careen off your face -- some defensive reaction will distract the shooter for a few moments. Even better maybe some chalk dust will get in his eyes. In either case, a you may create a few seconds where some of the children can run to safety.

Of course this doesn't account for that sage advice:"Running? Running's not a plan. Running's what you do when a plan don't work." Earl to Val, Tremors 1990.

That's a good start, but also skilled in the use of those arms, as well as in small-unit tactics at least--so the militia forms an effective fighting force, and not just a bunch of guys standing around with rifles (here's a founding-era example perhaps.)

Except they won't. Seriously, if you are so insane as to plan a massacre of first-graders you don't think you're going to take the trouble to obtain one of the millions, ban or no ban, of semi-automatic weapons in the country. I just don't think people understand how many weapons there are in this country and how, even when laws are passed restricting them, they settle into the sock drawers and attics of the country. "Suicide Specials", cheap 5-shot break-top revolvers were very popular in pre-WWI America. Whenever I see a photo of the results of some gun buy-back I'm amazed how many of these 100 year-old guns show up.

You're headed in the right direction, Beach, but you're not taking the idea far enough. A classroom is loaded with potential weapons. Does the teacher have a sharp letter opener? Stand behind the door so when he kicks it in or shoots it open you can step up behind him and stab him in the eye? No letter opener? How about a ball point pen -- less likelihood of success but a 5% chance of success beats zero, does it not? How about a fire extinguisher? A shot of CO2 or foam into the face then brain him with it.

Is that a lot to think of on the spur of the moment? Yes. So the answer is to be prepared by thinking "the unthinkable" in advance.

As I've written in previous comments, the three options available are to (a) try to hide -- with hardly any decent hiding places -- and hope the shooter goes away or kills himself first; (b) try to hide, and hope the police get there to stop him before he finds you; or (c) fight back. Sometimes there's a (d) -- run! But not always, and not in the case of Newtown.

The principal chose (c), and failed, but the teachers chose (b), as they were probably trained to do (if they had any training at all). However it took the police 20 minutes to get there! They knew the call was shots fired in an elementary school, and perhaps some of the responders had children in that very school. They surely came as fast as possible! But it was 20 minutes.

People assume that "fight back" means "fight back with a gun." A gun gives you almost a 100% chance of success -- the shooter has the advantage of surprise and initiative, but he isn't expecting anyone to shoot back so you've got an element of surprise going for you, too. But if you don't have a gun then find something else!

Think about it, plan for it, and pray you'll never have to execute the plan.

If Wright's hypothetical - a school shooting every day - I would change my view of the Second Amendment. I would then believe that it requires all Americans eligible to be a part of of the militia to openly carry firearms at all times outside their house.

In 20 minutes a "well-regulated" (which meant trained, at the time) Revolutionary-era militiaman was expected to be able to fire 60-80 aimed shots from his musket, the "assault rifle" of the day (3-4 a minute).

If attacked by 1 or 2 or 3 unarmed persons he would simply "see them off" with his bayonet.

The only real chance of stopping him from firing until his barrel fouled closed is if one of those people had a pistol in their waistcoat.

If Wright's hypothetical - a school shooting every day - I would change my view of the Second Amendment. I would then believe that it requires all Americans eligible to be a part of of the militia to openly carry firearms at all times outside their house.

Exactly. If there's a group of people per day using deadly force against schools then there's a serious terrorism problem, and trying to ban guns isn't going to stop it. The solution to that problem is to be armed to the teeth so you can fight back whenever and wherever it happens.

some fella, the bottom line is that the gun banners track record leads those of us who want the civil right of self-defense to treat any of their proposals as a hudna, the truce Muslims propose with infidels to allow them to build up enough strength to win by outright force. Better not to play at all.